Following yesterday’s article in the Mail on Sunday I have seen a raft of responses from readers, budding politicians and commentators across the blogosphere. Some of the more interesting reactions were posted on Conservativehome. Although there is a wide spectrum of individual views, the comments appear to fall into two camps. First, there are those who clearly feel that I have “whinged” about my lack of success after such a short period of time on the list and suggest that I should have expected nothing less given my lack of a political footprint or convictions. Secondly, there are those who believe that I have highlighted a particular issue for the Conservative Party and that “something should be done”.

I would like to thank everyone who took the time to comment on the article. Debate is the essence of our democracy and the ability to criticize should be defended at all costs.

However, I should like to take this opportunity to point out a few issues contained within the article which have been misunderstood.

I was not complaining that I felt let down by the Party after less than a year on the list. Rather, I was highlighting that, having got on the list and tried to “start at the bottom”, I was annoyed about Mr Cameron’s reopening the list for “ordinary people”. I noted that his announcement specifically stated that applicants need not have a political history. The absence of this “political history” is central to many of the less positive comments about the article. I am happy - as I stated - to acquire a political footprint. I am less than happy that it would appear that this is now not necessary.

I have not given up trying to be an MP. Quite the reverse. In fact I am off to a local campaign (Zac Goldsmith) meeting in the next half an hour. However, I believe that we should use all the talents at our disposal. Yes, I am able to write for a national newspaper but is that not one of the key skills required for a politician? I note that most of the shadow front bench have, at one time or another in the last 12 months, contributed to newspapers. Indeed, Michael Gove makes a living that way. Being able to communicate on this basis should not preclude my standing and does not, in my opinion, compromise my claim to “ordinariness”.

Finally, let me say that I would like this debate to continue so please keep the comments coming.